Which free AV has the fastest scan speed

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Albinoni, Sep 20, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Albinoni

    Albinoni Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Posts:
    709
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    Though alot of free AV software out there may do a good job in terms of their protection, I've found out that alot of them also have a slow scan speed/rate. say for eg if a user wanted to scan his/hers HDD it would seem to take for ever compared to the paid products, but than again you can't complain when your getting something for free. But again personally to me detection is better than scan speed/rate.

    So out of all the free AV software out there which one do you think has the fastest scan rate/speed.
     
  2. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    In my experience Avira scans faster than Avast. I have not checked AVG.
    I see no reason that the free version should scan slower than the paid, but maybe someone can fill me in on that.

    Regards,
    Jerry
     
  3. Inspector Clouseau

    Inspector Clouseau AV Expert

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,329
    Location:
    Maidenhead, UK
    The "fastest" scanspeed says basically nothing. There are quite a few complex viruses which are slowing down the scan speed if you want to detect them in a proper way.
     
  4. Stefan Kurtzhals

    Stefan Kurtzhals AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Posts:
    701
    For the user, the scan speed on clean files is relevant I think - not the scan speed on polymorphic or runtime packed malware.
     
  5. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    I would not disagree, but then does it follow that the slowest scanners are better at detecting malware?

    Would that make Bit Defender, for example, better than NOD32?

    Thanks,
    Jerry
     
  6. Littlemutt

    Littlemutt Guest

    I don't understand the obsession with 'scan-speed'. Set it to scan while your at work or sleeping, who cares how long it takes.

    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20060920 Minefield/3.0a1, Firefox ID:2006092004 [cairo]
     
  7. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    For me as a user, I do not choose an AV based upon the scan speed. However, it is convenient to have a relatively fast scanner at times. I don't leave my machines on 24/7.

    I am more concerned with detection rates, and load plus how well it runs with other applications.

    Best,
    Jerry
     
  8. tansu

    tansu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Posts:
    210
    Hi,
    Here's my personal test with free AV's. I made it 05-24-2006 with the latest versions of them according to date. I used about 10000 malware, viruses, trojans and other stuff.. I full scanned the system with the default settings of each AV.
    As well as, you interest in scan speeds here they are:


    AVG:
    14 Minutes 52 Seconds

    Avast!:
    11 Minutes 02 Seconds

    Antivir:
    10 Minutes 42 Seconds

    Bitdefender Free:
    09 Minutes 15 Seconds

    ClamWin:
    29 Minutes 54 Seconds

    Edit: By the way I did this in vmware. I cloned the same virtual machine
     
  9. Inspector Clouseau

    Inspector Clouseau AV Expert

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,329
    Location:
    Maidenhead, UK
    Including detection of EPO viruses *DOES* slow down also the processing of clean files. Not that it scans 5 min per file more, but if you scan especially ONLY executable files with a lot of dedicated detection plugins you will notice a reasonable time difference when scanning lets say a few 100 gigabytes of executables.
     
  10. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    And who has few 100GB of executables apart from virus lab :p
    Executables alone pose very small % of all files. Biggest files are usually movies and texture resources of games.
     
  11. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,302
    Location:
    Location Unknown

    You assume that every AV has a built in schedule function that will allow this. VBA32, for instance does not. So in this case, scanning speed is very important.
     
  12. FRug

    FRug Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    Posts:
    309
    Scan speed is important for on access scanning, which is mostly what people refer to as "system slowdown" or "load"....

    Funny though, that the AV with the worst detection rate also has the worst scanning speed... and for ClamAV that is certainly not because of their mere 3 or 4 dedicated poly detections.
     
  13. YeOldeStonecat

    YeOldeStonecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Posts:
    2,345
    Location:
    Along the Shorelines somewhere in New England
    For the home users...true. For those of us in the IT field...it's HUGE. And IMO, doesn't matter of fast on clean files and slow on other types..for me, it's assumed dirty..you're manually scanning a machine because it has problems...often the case of your install an AV product on an infected machine...and scan in safe mode to attempt to clean it.
     
  14. farmerlee

    farmerlee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Posts:
    2,585
    From what i remember i think kaspersky had the fastest scan speed. The review stated it took KAV 8 mins to scan an 80 gig hdd. The next best was bitdefender at 20 mins and avg & nod32 at 24mins.
     
  15. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    thats only with "scan new and changed files only" on as far as i know normaly a longer correct me if wrong
     
  16. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    I don't think so . At work , I consider my self as Advanced but at home , I am home user, too . I mean it matters to all kind of user . Anybody can't wait the antivirus XYZ to scan the whole machine for hours when he/she can have another which scans for minutes .

    When I install on client's machine(s) , then I have to perform full scan to ensure the machine is clean when I left it there , the scan speed here is priceless . :thumb:
     
  17. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    The 8 minutes would have to be with "scan new and changed files only." Otherwise it takes 30-40 minutes. I personally see no reason not to use the shorter scan.
    However BD9 always took over 40 minutes on the same machine, and NOD about 32 minutes. I found BD one of the longest scan times of the few that I tried including AVAST.
    Jerry
     
  18. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    oddly f-secure scanning is slow than bitdefender dont ask me why. i guess its because it uses kaspersky,ad aware and other engines.
     
  19. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    Sorry, I did overlook that F-Secure is at least as long as BD. I find them very similar in scan times, but if there is an advantage it goes to BD.

    Jerry
     
  20. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    i used to care that scans take ages but then thought bd has more support for packers etc. so its more through so i dont mind.
     
  21. farmerlee

    farmerlee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Posts:
    2,585
    I'd say they used out of the box settings, so it will be whatever bitdefender uses as default settings.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.